Cobimetinib plus atezolizumab in BRAFV600 wild-type melanoma: primary results from the randomized phase III IMspire170 study

Understanding quality of life issues in patients with advanced melanoma: Phase 1 and 2 in the development of the EORTC advanced melanoma module

AIMS

We aimed to develop a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life (QoL) module tailored for patients with advanced (resectable or unresectable stage III/IV) melanoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors or targeted therapy.

METHODS

Following the EORTC QoL Group module development guidelines, we conducted phases 1 and 2 of the development process. In phase 1, we generated a list of health-related (HR)QoL issues through a systematic literature review and semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients with advanced melanoma. In phase 2, these issues were converted into questionnaire items to create the preliminary module.

RESULTS

Phase 1: we retrieved 8006 articles for the literature review, of which 35 were deemed relevant, resulting in 84 HRQoL issues being extracted to create the initial issue list. Semi-structured interviews with 18 HCPs and 28 patients with advanced melanoma resulted in 28 issues being added to the initial issue list. Following EORTC module development criteria, 26 issues were removed, and two issues were added after review by patient advocates. Phase 2: To ensure uniformity and avoid duplication, 16 issues were consolidated into eight items. Additionally, an independent expert contributed one new item, resulting in a preliminary module comprising 80 HRQoL items.

CONCLUSION

We identified a range of HRQoL issues (dry skin, xerostomia, and arthralgia) relevant to patients with stage III/IV melanoma. Future module development phases will refine the questionnaire. Once completed, this module will enable standardized assessment of HRQoL in patients with (locally) advanced melanoma.

Recent advances in immunotherapy and its combination therapies for advanced melanoma: a review

The incidence of melanoma is increasing year by year and is highly malignant, with a poor prognosis. Its treatment has always attracted much attention. Among the more clinically applied immunotherapies are immune checkpoint inhibitors, bispecific antibodies, cancer vaccines, adoptive cell transfer therapy, and oncolytic virotherapy. With the continuous development of technology and trials, in addition to immune monotherapy, combinations of immunotherapy and radiotherapy have shown surprising efficacy. In this article, we review the research progress of immune monotherapy and combination therapy for advanced melanoma, with the aim of providing new ideas for the treatment strategy for advanced melanoma.

Advancements in neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for locally advanced head and neck squamous Carcinoma: A narrative review

The prevalent treatment paradigm for locally advanced head and neck squamous carcinoma (HNSCC) typically entails surgery followed by adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Despite this, a significant proportion of patients experience recurrence and metastasis. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), notably pembrolizumab and nivolumab, have been established as the first and second lines of treatment for recurrent and metastatic HNSCC (R/M HNSCC). The application of ICIs as neoadjuvant immunotherapy in this context is currently under rigorous investigation. This review synthesizes data from clinical trials focusing on neoadjuvant ICIs, highlighting that the pathological responses elicited by these treatments are promising. Furthermore, it is noted that the safety profiles of both monotherapy and combination therapies with ICIs are manageable, with no new safety signals identified. The review concludes by contemplating the future direction and challenges associated with neoadjuvant ICI therapy, encompassing aspects such as the refinement of imaging and pathological response criteria, selection criteria for adjuvant therapies, evaluation of the efficacy and safety of various combination treatment modalities, and the identification of responsive patient cohorts.

A phase 1 trial of the MEK inhibitor selumetinib in combination with pembrolizumab for advanced or metastatic solid tumors

MEK inhibitors have immunomodulatory activity and potential for synergistic activity when combined with PD-1 inhibitors. We evaluated selumetinib (inhibitor of MEK1/2) plus pembrolizumab (anti‒PD-1 antibody) in patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors. In this phase 1b study, adults with previously treated advanced/metastatic solid tumors received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks plus selumetinib on days 1‒14 per 3-week cycle (2 weeks on/1 week off); selumetinib dosing began at 50 mg orally twice daily with escalation in 25 mg increments for ≤ 35 cycles. Primary endpoints were dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), adverse events (AEs), and treatment discontinuations due to AEs. Thirty-two patients were enrolled. Dose escalation was completed up to selumetinib 125 mg twice daily. The target DLT rate of 30% was not reached at any dose level. In the selumetinib 100 mg group, 2/11 patients (18.2%) experienced DLTs (n = 1 grade 3 diarrhea, n = 1 grade 3 fatigue). In the selumetinib 125 mg group, 3/14 (21.4%) experienced DLTs (n = 1 grade 2 retinal detachment, n = 1 grade 3 retinopathy, n = 1 grade 3 stomatitis). Dose-related changes in pharmacokinetic exposures were observed for selumetinib and N-desmethyl selumetinib up to 100 mg (saturation at 125 mg). Two patients achieved partial responses (1 each with selumetinib 75 mg and 125 mg) for an objective response rate of 6%. The study was stopped early because of insufficient efficacy. Although the target DLT rate was not reached at any dose level and no new safety signals were identified, selumetinib plus pembrolizumab had limited antitumor activity in this population. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03833427.

Primary results and characterization of patients with exceptional outcomes in a phase 1b study combining PARP and MEK inhibition, with or without anti-PD-L1, for BRCA wild-type, platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

This phase 1b study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03695380) evaluated regimens combining PARP and MEK inhibition, with or without PD-L1 inhibition, for BRCA wild-type, platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC).

METHODS

Patients with PSROC who had received one or two prior treatment lines were treated with 28-day cycles of cobimetinib 60 mg daily (days 1-21) plus niraparib 200 mg daily (days 1-28) with or without atezolizumab 840 mg (days 1 and 15). Stage 1 assessed safety before expansion to stage 2, which randomized patients who had BRCA wild-type PSROC to receive either doublet or triplet therapy, stratified by genome-wide loss of heterozygosity status (<16% vs. ≥16%; FoundationOne CDx assay) and platinum-free interval (≥6 to <12 vs. ≥12 months). Coprimary end points were safety and the investigator-determined objective response rate (ORR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). Potential associations between genetic parameters and efficacy were explored, and biomarker profiles of super-responders (complete response or those with progression-free survival [PFS] >15 months) and progressors (disease progression as the best response) were characterized.

RESULTS

The ORR in patients who had BRCA wild-type PSROC was 35% (95% confidence interval, 20%-53%) with the doublet regimen (n = 37) and 27% (95% confidence interval, 14%-44%) with the triplet regimen (n = 37), and the median PFS was 6.0 and 7.4 months, respectively. Post-hoc analyses indicated more favorable ORR and PFS in the homologous recombination-deficiency-signature (HRDsig)-positive subgroup than in the HRDsig-negative subgroup. Tolerability was consistent with the known profiles of individual agents. NF1 and MKNK1 mutations were associated with sustained benefit from the doublet and triplet regimens, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy-free doublet and triplet therapy demonstrated encouraging activity, including among patients who had BRCA wild-type, HRDsig-positive or HRDsig-negative PSROC harboring NF1 or MKNK1 mutations.

Emerging roles of TBK1 in cancer immunobiology

TANK-binding kinase 1 (TBK1) is a versatile serine/threonine protein kinase with established roles in innate immunity, metabolism, autophagy, cell death, and inflammation. While best known for its role in regulating innate immunity, TBK1 has emerged as a cancer cell-intrinsic immune evasion gene by virtue of its role in modulating cellular responses to inflammatory signals emanating from the immune system. Beyond its effect on cancer cells, TBK1 appears to regulate lymphoid and myeloid cells in the tumor immune microenvironment. In this review, we detail recent advances in our understanding of the tumor-intrinsic and -extrinsic roles and regulation of TBK1 in tumor immunity.

RAF and MEK Inhibitors in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Lung cancer, despite recent advancements in survival rates, represents a significant global health burden. Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the most prevalent type, is driven largely by activating mutations in Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue (KRAS) and receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs), and less in v-RAF murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B (BRAF) and mitogen-activated protein-kinase kinase (MEK), all key components of the RTK-RAS-mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway. Learning from melanoma, the identification of BRAFV600E substitution in NSCLC provided the rationale for the investigation of RAF and MEK inhibition as a therapeutic strategy. The regulatory approval of two RAF-MEK inhibitor combinations, dabrafenib-trametinib, in 2017, and encorafenib-binimetinib, in 2023, signifies a breakthrough for the management of BRAFV600E-mutant NSCLC patients. However, the almost universal emergence of acquired resistance limits their clinical benefit. New RAF and MEK inhibitors, with distinct biochemical characteristics, are in preclinical and clinical development. In this review, we aim to provide valuable insights into the current state of RAF and MEK inhibition in the management of NSCLC, fostering a deeper understanding of the potential impact on patient outcomes.

Potentials and future perspectives of multi-target drugs in cancer treatment: the next generation anti-cancer agents

Cancer is a major public health problem worldwide with more than an estimated 19.3 million new cases in 2020. The occurrence rises dramatically with age, and the overall risk accumulation is combined with the tendency for cellular repair mechanisms to be less effective in older individuals. Conventional cancer treatments, such as radiotherapy, surgery, and chemotherapy, have been used for decades to combat cancer. However, the emergence of novel fields of cancer research has led to the exploration of innovative treatment approaches focused on immunotherapy, epigenetic therapy, targeted therapy, multi-omics, and also multi-target therapy. The hypothesis was based on that drugs designed to act against individual targets cannot usually battle multigenic diseases like cancer. Multi-target therapies, either in combination or sequential order, have been recommended to combat acquired and intrinsic resistance to anti-cancer treatments. Several studies focused on multi-targeting treatments due to their advantages include; overcoming clonal heterogeneity, lower risk of multi-drug resistance (MDR), decreased drug toxicity, and thereby lower side effects. In this study, we'll discuss about multi-target drugs, their benefits in improving cancer treatments, and recent advances in the field of multi-targeted drugs. Also, we will study the research that performed clinical trials using multi-target therapeutic agents for cancer treatment.

Targeted DNA Sequencing of Cutaneous Melanoma Identifies Prognostic and Predictive Alterations

BACKGROUND

Cutaneous melanoma (CM) can be molecularly classified into four groups: BRAF mutant, NRAS mutant, NF1 mutant and triple wild-type (TWT) tumors lacking any of these three alterations. In the era of immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) and targeted molecular therapy, the clinical significance of these groups remains unclear. Here, we integrate targeted DNA sequencing with comprehensive clinical follow-up in CM patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study that assessed clinical and molecular features from patients with localized or metastatic CM who underwent targeted next-generation sequencing as part of routine clinical care. A total of 254 patients with CM who had a CLIA-certified targeted sequencing assay performed on their tumor tissue were included.

RESULTS

Of the 254 patients with cutaneous melanoma, 77 were BRAF mutant (30.3%), 77 were NRAS mutant (30.3%), 47 were NF1 mutant (18.5%), 33 were TWT (13.0%) and the remaining 20 (7.9%) carried mutations in multiple driver genes (BRAF/NRAS/NF1 co-mutated). The majority of this co-mutation group carried mutations in NF1 (n = 19 or 90%) with co-occurring mutations in BRAF or NRAS, often with a weaker oncogenic variant. Consistently, NF1 mutant tumors harbored numerous significantly co-altered genes compared to BRAF or NRAS mutant tumors. The majority of TWT tumors (n = 29, 87.9%) harbor a pathogenic mutation within a known Ras/MAPK signaling pathway component. Of the 154 cases with available TMB data, the median TMB was 20 (range 0.7-266 mutations/Mb). A total of 14 cases (9.1%) were classified as having a low TMB (≤5 mutations/Mb), 64 of 154 (41.6%) had an intermediate TMB (>5 and ≤20 mutations/Mb), 40 of 154 (26.0%) had a high TMB (>20 and ≤50 mutations/Mb) and 36 of 154 (23.4%) were classified as having a very high TMB (>50 mutations/Mb). NRAS mutant melanoma demonstrated significantly decreased overall survival on multivariable analysis (HR for death 2.95, 95% CI 1.13-7.69, p = 0.027, log-rank test) compared with other TCGA molecular subgroups. Of the 116 patients in our cohort with available treatment data, 36 received a combination of dual ICI with anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1 inhibition as first-line therapy. Elevated TMB was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival following dual-agent ICI (HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07-0.90, p = 0.033, log-rank test).

CONCLUSIONS

NRAS mutation in CMs correlated with significantly worse overall survival. Elevated TMB was associated with increased progression-free survival for patients treated with a combination of dual ICI, supporting the potential utility of TMB as a predictive biomarker for ICI response in melanoma.

BRAF and MEK inhibitor combinations induce potent molecular and immunological effects in NRAS-mutant melanoma cells: Insights into mode of action and resistance mechanisms

About 25% of melanoma harbor activating NRAS mutations, which are associated with aggressive disease therefore requiring a rapid antitumor intervention. However, no efficient targeted therapy options are currently available for patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma. MEK inhibitors (MEKi) appear to display a moderate antitumor activity and also immunological effects in NRAS-mutant melanoma, providing an ideal backbone for combination treatments. In our study, the MEKi binimetinib, cobimetinib and trametinib combined with the BRAF inhibitors (BRAFi) encorafenib, vemurafenib and dabrafenib were investigated for their ability to inhibit proliferation, induce apoptosis and alter the expression of immune modulatory molecules in sensitive NRAS-mutant melanoma cells using two- and three-dimensional cell culture models as well as RNA sequencing analyses. Furthermore, NRAS-mutant melanoma cells resistant to the three BRAFi/MEKi combinations were established to characterize the mechanisms contributing to their resistance. All BRAFi induced a stress response in the sensitive NRAS-mutant melanoma cells thereby significantly enhancing the antiproliferative and proapoptotic activity of the MEKi analyzed. Furthermore, BRAFi/MEKi combinations upregulated immune relevant molecules, such as ICOS-L, components of antigen-presenting machinery and the "don't eat me signal" molecule CD47 in the melanoma cells. The BRAFi/MEKi-resistant, NRAS-mutant melanoma cells counteracted the molecular and immunological effects of BRAFi/MEKi by upregulating downstream mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway molecules, inhibiting apoptosis and promoting immune escape mechanisms. Together, our study reveals potent molecular and immunological effects of BRAFi/MEKi in sensitive NRAS-mutant melanoma cells that may be exploited in new combinational treatment strategies for patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma.

BRAF - a tumour-agnostic drug target with lineage-specific dependencies

In June 2022, the FDA granted Accelerated Approval to the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib in combination with the MEK inhibitor trametinib for the treatment of adult and paediatric patients (≥6 years of age) with unresectable or metastatic BRAFV600E-mutant solid tumours, except for BRAFV600E-mutant colorectal cancers. The histology-agnostic approval of dabrafenib plus trametinib marks the culmination of two decades of research into the landscape of BRAF mutations in human cancers, the biochemical mechanisms underlying BRAF-mediated tumorigenesis, and the clinical development of selective RAF and MEK inhibitors. Although the majority of patients with BRAFV600E-mutant tumours derive clinical benefit from BRAF inhibitor-based combinations, resistance to treatment develops in most. In this Review, we describe the biochemical basis for oncogenic BRAF-induced activation of MAPK signalling and pan-cancer and lineage-specific mechanisms of intrinsic, adaptive and acquired resistance to BRAF inhibitors. We also discuss novel RAF inhibitors and drug combinations designed to delay the emergence of treatment resistance and/or expand the population of patients with BRAF-mutant cancers who benefit from molecularly targeted therapies.

Optimal strategy in managing advanced melanoma

The advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors and combination therapy with BRAF inhibitors and MEK inhibitors has dramatically improved the prognosis of advanced melanoma. However, since acral melanoma and mucosal melanoma, which are rare in Western countries but are major subtypes of melanoma in East Asia, including Japan, have a low frequency of BRAF mutations, there are currently no treatment options other than immune checkpoint inhibitors in most such cases. Furthermore, owing to a lower tumor mutation burden, immune checkpoint inhibitors are less effective in acral and mucosal melanoma than in cutaneous melanoma. The aim of this review was to summarize the current status and future prospects for the treatment of advanced melanoma, comparing cutaneous melanoma, acral melanoma, and mucosal melanoma.

Neoadjuvant cobimetinib and atezolizumab with or without vemurafenib for high-risk operable Stage III melanoma: the Phase II NeoACTIVATE trial

Both targeted therapies and immunotherapies provide benefit in resected Stage III melanoma. We hypothesized that the combination of targeted and immunotherapy given prior to therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND) would be tolerable and drive robust pathologic responses. In NeoACTIVATE (NCT03554083), a Phase II trial, patients with clinically evident resectable Stage III melanoma received either 12 weeks of neoadjuvant vemurafenib, cobimetinib, and atezolizumab (BRAF-mutated, Cohort A, n = 15), or cobimetinib and atezolizumab (BRAF-wild-type, Cohort B, n = 15) followed by TLND and 24 weeks of adjuvant atezolizumab. Here, we report outcomes from the neoadjuvant portion of the trial. Based on intent to treat analysis, pathologic response (≤50% viable tumor) and major pathologic response (complete or near-complete, ≤10% viable tumor) were observed in 86.7% and 66.7% of BRAF-mutated and 53.3% and 33.3% of BRAF-wild-type patients, respectively (primary outcome); these exceeded pre-specified benchmarks of 50% and 30% for major pathologic response. Grade 3 and higher toxicities, primarily dermatologic, occurred in 63% during neoadjuvant treatment (secondary outcome). No surgical delays nor progression to regional unresectability occurred (secondary outcome). Peripheral blood CD8 + TCM cell expansion associated with favorable pathologic responses (exploratory outcome).

Nivolumab monotherapy or combination with ipilimumab with or without cobimetinib in previously treated patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (CheckMate 032)

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer is one of the deadliest cancer types and represents a major unmet medical need. CheckMate 032 investigated safety and efficacy of nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab with/without cobimetinib in advanced/metastatic solid tumors, including pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

In the original pancreatic cancer cohort, previously treated patients (≥1 prior regimen) with advanced/metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were assigned to nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (monotherapy arm) or nivolumab 1 mg/kg and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (combination arm). A subsequent modified pancreatic cohort (one or two prior regimens) received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks, and cobimetinib 60 mg orally once daily for 21 days on and 7 days off (triplet arm). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), PFS rate, overall survival (OS), OS rate, safety, and tolerability. Additionally, ORR, PFS, and duration of response were assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) in the triplet arm.

RESULTS

18 patients received nivolumab monotherapy, 21 received nivolumab plus ipilimumab, and 30 received nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus cobimetinib. In the triplet arm, partial responses were observed in two patients per investigator (ORR 6.7% (95% CI 0.8% to 22.1%)) and in three patients per BICR (ORR 10% (95% CI 2.1% to 26.5%)); no responses were observed in the other arms. Median (95% CI) PFS per investigator was 1.4 (1.3 to 2.0), 1.4 (1.2 to 2.7), and 3.0 (1.5 to 4.1) months for the monotherapy, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, and triplet arms, respectively. Median (95% CI) OS was 5.1 (2.0 to 9.0) months, 4.0 (1.9 to 5.6) months, and 6.2 (3.9 to 11.4) months, respectively. Most treatment-related adverse events were grade 2 or less.

CONCLUSIONS

Nivolumab with or without ipilimumab did not elicit objective responses in previously treated patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma, although three confirmed partial responses and manageable safety were observed with cobimetinib-containing triplet therapy. The small sample size and differences in baseline disease-specific characteristics between arms limit interpretation of these results.

Atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib in patients with melanoma with CNS metastases (TRICOTEL): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study

BACKGROUND

Targeted therapy and immunotherapy have shown intracranial activity in melanoma with CNS metastases, but there remains an unmet need, particularly for patients with symptomatic CNS metastases. We aimed to evaluate atezolizumab in combination with cobimetinib or vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in patients with melanoma with CNS metastases.

METHODS

TRICOTEL was a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study done in two cohorts: a BRAFV600 wild-type cohort and a BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort, recruited at 21 hospitals and oncology centres in Brazil, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated metastatic melanoma, brain metastases of 5 mm or larger in at least one dimension, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less. Patients in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort received intravenous atezolizumab (840 mg, days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily, days 1-21). Patients in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort received intravenous atezolizumab (840 mg, days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus oral vemurafenib (720 mg twice daily) plus oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily, days 1-21); atezolizumab was withheld in cycle 1. Treatment was continued until progression, toxicity, or death. The primary outcome was intracranial objective response rate confirmed by assessments at least 4 weeks apart, as assessed by independent review committee (IRC) using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1. Because of early closure of the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort, the primary endpoint of intracranial objective response rate by IRC assessment was not done in this cohort; intracranial objective response rate by investigator assessment was reported instead. Efficacy and safety were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is closed to enrolment and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03625141.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 13, 2018, and Dec 7, 2020, 65 patients were enrolled in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort; the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort was closed early after enrolment of 15 patients. Median follow-up was 9·7 months (IQR 6·3-15·0) for the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and 6·2 months (3·5-23·0) for the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. Intracranial objective response rate was 42% (95% CI 29-54) by IRC assessment in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and 27% (95% CI 8-55) by investigator assessment in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. Treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 41 (68%) of 60 patients who received atezolizumab plus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort, the most common of which were lipase increased (15 [25%] of 60 patients) and blood creatine phosphokinase increased (11 [18%]). Eight (53%) of 15 patients treated with atezolizumab plus cobimetinib in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort had treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events, most commonly anaemia (two [13%]) and dermatitis acneiform (two [13%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 14 (23%) of 60 patients who received triplet therapy in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and two (13%) of 15 in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. No treatment-related deaths occurred.

INTERPRETATION

Atezolizumab plus vemurafenib and cobimetinib provided intracranial activity in patients with BRAFV600-mutated melanoma with CNS metastases.

FUNDING

F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Systemic Therapy for Melanoma: ASCO Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To provide guidance to clinicians regarding the use of systemic therapy for melanoma.

METHODS

American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel and conducted an updated systematic review of the literature.

RESULTS

The updated review identified 21 additional randomized trials.

UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS

Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab was newly recommended for patients with resectable stage IIIB to IV cutaneous melanoma. For patients with resected cutaneous melanoma, adjuvant nivolumab or pembrolizumab was newly recommended for stage IIB-C disease and adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab was added as a potential option for stage IV disease. For patients with unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, nivolumab plus relatlimab was added as a potential option regardless of BRAF mutation status and nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab was preferred over BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy. Talimogene laherparepvec is no longer recommended as an option for patients with BRAF wild-type disease who have progressed on anti-PD-1 therapy. Ipilimumab- and ipilimumab-containing regimens are no longer recommended for patients with BRAF-mutated disease after progression on other therapies.This full update incorporates the new recommendations for uveal melanoma published in the 2022 Rapid Recommendation Update.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/melanoma-guidelines.

Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma, version 3.0

Since the first approval for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the treatment of cutaneous melanoma more than a decade ago, immunotherapy has completely transformed the treatment landscape of this chemotherapy-resistant disease. Combination regimens including ICIs directed against programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) with anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) agents or, more recently, anti-lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) agents, have gained regulatory approvals for the treatment of metastatic cutaneous melanoma, with long-term follow-up data suggesting the possibility of cure for some patients with advanced disease. In the resectable setting, adjuvant ICIs prolong recurrence-free survival, and neoadjuvant strategies are an active area of investigation. Other immunotherapy strategies, such as oncolytic virotherapy for injectable cutaneous melanoma and bispecific T-cell engager therapy for HLA-A*02:01 genotype-positive uveal melanoma, are also available to patients. Despite the remarkable efficacy of these regimens for many patients with cutaneous melanoma, traditional immunotherapy biomarkers (ie, programmed death-ligand 1 expression, tumor mutational burden, T-cell infiltrate and/or microsatellite stability) have failed to reliably predict response. Furthermore, ICIs are associated with unique toxicity profiles, particularly for the highly active combination of anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4 agents. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a panel of experts to develop this clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma, including rare subtypes of the disease (eg, uveal, mucosal), with the goal of improving patient care by providing guidance to the oncology community. Drawing from published data and clinical experience, the Expert Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for healthcare professionals using immunotherapy to treat melanoma, with topics including therapy selection in the advanced and perioperative settings, intratumoral immunotherapy, when to use immunotherapy for patients with BRAFV600-mutated disease, management of patients with brain metastases, evaluation of treatment response, special patient populations, patient education, quality of life, and survivorship, among others.

Comparison of different predictive biomarker testing assays for PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors response: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Accurate prediction of efficacy of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) checkpoint inhibitors is of critical importance. To address this issue, a network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing existing common measurements for curative effect of PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy was conducted.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library database, and relevant clinical trials to find out studies published before Feb 22, 2023 that use PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC), tumor mutational burden (TMB), gene expression profiling (GEP), microsatellite instability (MSI), multiplex IHC/immunofluorescence (mIHC/IF), other immunohistochemistry and hematoxylin-eosin staining (other IHC&HE) and combined assays to determine objective response rates to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy. Study-level data were extracted from the published studies. The primary goal of this study was to evaluate the predictive efficacy and rank these assays mainly by NMA, and the second objective was to compare them in subgroup analyses. Heterogeneity, quality assessment, and result validation were also conducted by meta-analysis.

Findings

144 diagnostic index tests in 49 studies covering 5322 patients were eligible for inclusion. mIHC/IF exhibited highest sensitivity (0.76, 95% CI: 0.57-0.89), the second diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) (5.09, 95% CI: 1.35-13.90), and the second superiority index (2.86). MSI had highest specificity (0.90, 95% CI: 0.85-0.94), and DOR (6.79, 95% CI: 3.48-11.91), especially in gastrointestinal tumors. Subgroup analyses by tumor types found that mIHC/IF, and other IHC&HE demonstrated high predictive efficacy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), while PD-L1 IHC and MSI were highly efficacious in predicting the effectiveness in gastrointestinal tumors. When PD-L1 IHC was combined with TMB, the sensitivity (0.89, 95% CI: 0.82-0.94) was noticeably improved revealed by meta-analysis in all studies.

Interpretation

Considering statistical results of NMA and clinical applicability, mIHC/IF appeared to have superior performance in predicting response to anti PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. Combined assays could further improve the predictive efficacy. Prospective clinical trials involving a wider range of tumor types are needed to establish a definitive gold standard in future.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of combination therapy versus monotherapy in malignant melanoma

BACKGROUND

Until 2010, stage III or IV malignant melanoma (MM) had a poor prognosis. The discovery of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in 2011 changed the treatment landscape. Promising results in patient survival with a checkpoint inhibitor prompted research into combination therapies. In 2016, the first combination therapy has been approved as first-line therapy for advanced MM.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this work is to investigate to what extent combination therapy is (cost-)effective compared to monotherapy in stage III or IV MM.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed (Web of Science, PubMed, PubPharm, EconLit, and Cochrane Library); searching for publications published over the past decade that examine the cost-effectiveness in terms of cost/QALY and the effectiveness in terms of survival and response of combination therapy in comparison to monotherapy in stage III or IV MM patients.

RESULTS

A total of 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five cost-utility analyses met our inclusion criteria. Nine clinical trials demonstrated superiority of combination therapy over monotherapy. The combination of B-rapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma (BRAF) protein and mitogen-activated kinase (MEK) protein inhibitors is not cost-effective in any country. Three analyses demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of combination therapy with ICI compared to monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Combination therapy is more effective compared to monotherapy. While combined ICIs are cost-effective compared to monotherapy, this is not the case for the combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

Macrophage's role in solid tumors: two edges of a sword

The tumor microenvironment is overwhelmingly dictated by macrophages, intimately affiliated with tumors, exercising pivotal roles in multiple processes, including angiogenesis, extracellular matrix reconfiguration, cellular proliferation, metastasis, and immunosuppression. They further exhibit resilience to chemotherapy and immunotherapy via meticulous checkpoint blockades. When appropriately stimulated, macrophages can morph into a potent bidirectional component of the immune system, engulfing malignant cells and annihilating them with cytotoxic substances, thus rendering them intriguing candidates for therapeutic targets. As myelomonocytic cells relentlessly amass within tumor tissues, macrophages rise as prime contenders for cell therapy upon the development of chimeric antigen receptor effector cells. Given the significant incidence of macrophage infiltration correlated with an unfavorable prognosis and heightened resistance to chemotherapy in solid tumors, we delve into the intricate role of macrophages in cancer propagation and their promising potential in confronting four formidable cancer variants-namely, melanoma, colon, glioma, and breast cancers.

Activity and safety of first-line treatments for advanced melanoma: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Treatment options for advanced melanoma have increased with the US Food and Drug Administration approval of the anti-LAG3 plus anti-PD-1 relatlimab/nivolumab combination. To date, ipilimumab/nivolumab is the benchmark of overall survival, despite a high toxicity profile. Furthermore, in BRAF-mutant patients, BRAF/MEK inhibitors and the atezolizumab/vemurafenib/cobimetinib triplet are also available treatments, making the first-line therapy selection more complex. To address this issue, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the available first-line treatment options in advanced melanoma.

METHODS

Randomised clinical trials of previously untreated, advanced melanoma were included if at least one intervention arm contained a BRAF/MEK or an immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI). The aim was to indirectly compare the ICIs combinations ipilimumab/nivolumab and relatlimab/nivolumab, and these combinations with all the other first-line treatment options for advanced melanoma (irrespective of BRAF status) in terms of activity and safety. The coprimary end-points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (≥ G3 TRAEs) rate, defined according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events.

RESULTS

A total of 9070 metastatic melanoma patients treated in 18 randomised clinical trials were included in the network meta-analysis. No difference in PFS and ORR was observed between ipilimumab/nivolumab and relatlimab/nivolumab (HR = 0.99 [95% CI 0.75-1.31] and RR = 0.99 [95% CI 0.78-1.27], respectively). The PD-(L)1/BRAF/MEK inhibitors triplet combinations were superior to ipilimumab/nivolumab in terms of both PFS (HR = 0.56 [95% CI 0.37-0.84]) and ORR (RR = 3.07 [95% CI 1.61-5.85]). Ipilimumab/nivolumab showed the highest risk of developing ≥ G3 TRAEs. Relatlimab/nivolumab trended to a lower risk of ≥ G3 TRAEs (RR = 0.71 [95% CI 0.30-1.67]) versus ipilimumab/nivolumab.

CONCLUSION

Relatlimab/nivolumab showed similar PFS and ORR compared to ipilimumab/nivolumab, with a trend for a better safety profile.

Immune checkpoint inhibition in patients with NRAS mutated and NRAS wild type melanoma: a multicenter Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group study on 637 patients from the prospective skin cancer registry ADOREG

BACKGROUND

Melanomas frequently harbour somatic mutations in BRAF (40%) or NRAS (20%). Impact of NRAS mutations on the therapeutic outcome of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) remains controversial. Potential correlation of the NRAS mutational status and programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression in melanoma is unknown.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Advanced, non-resectable melanoma patients with known NRAS mutation status treated with first-line ICI between 06/2014 and 05/2020 in the prospective multicenter skin cancer registry ADOREG were included. Overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) according to NRAS status were analysed. A multivariate Cox model was used to analyse factors associated with PFS and OS; survival was analysed using the Kaplan-Meier approach.

RESULTS

Among 637 BRAF wild-type patients, 310 (49%) had an NRAS mutation with Q61R (41%) and Q61K (32%). NRAS-mutated (NRASmut) melanomas were significantly more often located on the lower extremities and trunk (p = 0.001); nodular melanoma was the most common subtype (p < 0.0001). No significant differences were found for PFS and OS for anti-PD1 monotherapy (2-year PFS 39%, [95% confidence interval (CI), 33-47] in NRASmut patients and 41% [95% CI, 35-48] in NRAS-wild type (NRASwt) patients; 2-year OS was 54% [95% CI, 48-61] in NRASmut patients and 57% [95% CI, 50-64] in NRASwt patients) and anti-PD1 plus anti-CTLA4 therapy between both cohorts (2-year PFS was 54% [95% CI, 44-66] in NRASmut patients and 53% [95% CI, 41-67] in NRASwt patients; 2-year OS was 58% [95% CI, 49-70] in NRASmut patients and 62% [95% CI, 51-75] in NRASwt patients). The ORR to anti-PD1 was 35% for NRASwt patients and 26% for NRASmut patients and 34% compared to 32% for combinational therapy. Data on PD-L1 expression was available in 82 patients (13%). PD-L1 expression (>5%) was not correlated to NRAS mutational status. In multivariate analysis, elevated lactate dehydrogenase, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥ 1, and brain metastases were significantly associated with a higher risk of death in all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The PFS and OS were not affected by NRAS mutational status in patients treated with anti-PD1-based ICI. Similar ORR was seen in NRASwt and NRASmut patients. Tumour PD-L1 expression did not correlate with NRAS mutational status.

Whole genome sequencing across clinical trials identifies rare coding variants in GPR68 associated with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy

BACKGROUND

Dose-limiting toxicities significantly impact the benefit/risk profile of many drugs. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) in patients receiving drugs with dose-limiting toxicities can identify therapeutic hypotheses to prevent these toxicities. Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common dose-limiting neurological toxicity of chemotherapies with no effective approach for prevention.

METHODS

We conducted a genetic study of time-to-first peripheral neuropathy event using 30× germline WGS data from whole blood samples from 4900 European-ancestry cancer patients in 14 randomized controlled trials. A substantial number of patients in these trials received taxane and platinum-based chemotherapies as part of their treatment regimen, either standard of care or in combination with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab. The trials spanned several cancers including renal cell carcinoma, triple negative breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, small cell lung cancer, bladder cancer, ovarian cancer, and melanoma.

RESULTS

We identified a locus consisting of low-frequency variants in intron 13 of GRID2 associated with time-to-onset of first peripheral neuropathy (PN) indexed by rs17020773 (p = 2.03 × 10^-8, all patients, p = 6.36 × 10^-9, taxane treated). Gene-level burden analysis identified rare coding variants associated with increased PN risk in the C-terminus of GPR68 (p = 1.59 × 10^-6, all patients, p = 3.47 × 10^-8, taxane treated), a pH-sensitive G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR). The variants driving this signal were found to alter predicted arrestin binding motifs in the C-terminus of GPR68. Analysis of snRNA-seq from human dorsal root ganglia (DRG) indicated that expression of GPR68 was highest in mechano-thermo-sensitive nociceptors.

CONCLUSIONS

Our genetic study provides insight into the impact of low-frequency and rare coding genetic variation on PN risk and suggests that further study of GPR68 in sensory neurons may yield a therapeutic hypothesis for prevention of CIPN.

Combination of immune-checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies for melanoma therapy: The more, the better?

The approval of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) and mitogen activated protein kinase inhibitors (MAPKi) in recent years significantly improved the treatment management and survival of patients with advanced malignant melanoma. CPI aim to counter-act receptor-mediated inhibitory effects of tumor cells and immunomodulatory cell types on effector T cells, whereas MAPKi are intended to inhibit tumor cell survival. In agreement with these complementary modes of action preclinical data indicated that the combined application of CPI and MAPKi or their optimal sequencing might provide additional clinical benefit. In this review the rationale and preclinical evidence that support the combined application of MAPKi and CPI either in concurrent or consecutive regimens are presented. Further, we will discuss the results from clinical trials investigating the sequential or combined application of MAPKi and CPI for advanced melanoma patients and their implications for clinical practice. Finally, we outline mechanisms of MAPKi and CPI cross-resistance which limit the efficacy of currently available treatments, as well as combination regimens.

Adverse events of PD-(L)1 inhibitors plus anti-VEGF(R) agents compared with PD-(L)1 inhibitors alone for cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Anti-PD-(L)1 antibody monotherapy or in combination with VEGF(R) blockade has been applied widely for cancer treatment. Whether combination therapy increases irAEs still remains controversial. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing PD-(L)1 and VEGF(R) blockade combination therapy with PD-(L)1 inhibitors alone was performed. Phase II or III randomized clinical trials reporting irAEs or trAEs were included. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021287603. Results: Overall, 77 articles were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 31 studies involving 8,638 participants were pooled and an incidence for PD-(L)1 inhibitor monotherapy with any grade and grade ≥3 irAEs of 0.25 (0.20, 0.32) and 0.06 (0.05, 0.07), respectively, were reported. Two studies with 863 participants pooled for PD-(L)1 and VEGF(R) blockade showed that an incidence of any grade and grade ≥3 irAEs were 0.47 (0.30, 0.65) and 0.11 (0.08, 0.16), respectively. Regarding pairwise comparisons for irAEs, only one study was included, indicating no significant difference between the two regimens in terms of colitis, hyperthyroidism, and hypothyroidism for any grade and grade ≥3, while there was a trend of higher incidence for any grade hyperthyroidism under the combination therapy. The incidence of reactive cutaneous capillary endothelial proliferation (RCCEP) was as high as 0.80 under camrelizumab monotherapy. Conclusion: Total incidences of any grade and grade ≥3 irAEs were higher in the combination treatment group. Direct comparisons indicated no significant difference between the two regimens for any grade and grade ≥3 specific irAEs. RCCEP and thyroid disorders need to be paid attention to clinically. Moreover, trials with direct comparisons are needed and the safety profiles of the two regimens should be further explored. Exploration of the mechanism of action and regulatory management of adverse events should be enhanced. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=287603, identifier CRD42021287603.

Pharmacological inhibition of EZH2 by ZLD1039 suppresses tumor growth and pulmonary metastasis in melanoma cells in vitro and in vivo

The incidence and mortality rate of malignant melanoma are increasing worldwide. Metastasis reduces the efficacy of current melanoma therapies and leads to poor prognosis for patients. EZH2 is a methyltransferase that promotes the proliferation, metastasis, and drug resistance of tumor cells by regulating transcriptional activity. EZH2 inhibitors could be effective in melanoma therapies. Herein, we aimed to investigate whether the pharmacological inhibition of EZH2 by ZLD1039, a potent and selective S-adenosyl-l-methionine-EZH2 inhibitor, suppresses tumor growth and pulmonary metastasis in melanoma cells. Results showed that ZLD1039 selectively reduced H3K27 methylation in melanoma cells by inhibiting EZH2 methyltransferase activity. Additionally, ZLD1039 exerted excellent antiproliferative effects on melanoma cells in 2D and 3D culture systems. Administration of ZLD1039 (100 mg/kg) by oral gavage caused antitumor effects in the A375 subcutaneous xenograft mouse model. RNA sequencing and GSEA revealed that the ZLD1039-treated tumors exhibited changes in the gene sets enriched from the "Cell Cycle" and "Oxidative Phosphorylation", whereas the "ECM receptor interaction" gene set had a negative enrichment score. Mechanistically, ZLD1039 induced G0/G1 phase arrest by upregulating p16 and p27 and inhibiting the functions of the cyclin D1/CDK6 and cyclin E/CDK2 complexes. Moreover, ZLD1039 induced apoptosis in melanoma cells via the mitochondrial reactive oxygen species apoptotic pathway, consistent with the changes in transcriptional signatures. ZLD1039 also exhibited excellent antimetastatic effects on melanoma cells in vitro and in vivo. Our data highlight that ZLD1039 may be effective against melanoma growth and pulmonary metastasis and thus could serve as a therapeutic agent for melanoma.

Safety and efficacy of cobimetinib plus atezolizumab in patients with solid tumors: a phase II, open-label, multicenter, multicohort study

BACKGROUND

Although introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors has revolutionized the treatment of cancer, their response rates are generally low. Preclinical and early phase clinical data suggest that MEK inhibition may sensitize tumors to immune checkpoint inhibitors by upregulating tumor antigen expression, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, and tumor T-cell infiltration. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of cobimetinib plus atezolizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors in the open-label, multicohort phase II COTEST study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This analysis of the COTEST trial included patients from cohorts 1-4 [1-3: anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/PD-L1 treatment-naive patients; 4: patients with disease progression on anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 treatment] who received cobimetinib 60 mg once daily for the first 21 days and intravenous infusions of atezolizumab 840 mg on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle. Efficacy endpoints included objective response rate, overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS), and disease control rate.

RESULTS

Overall, 77 patients were enrolled in cohorts 1-4 (78% male; median age 62.8 years). Objective response rate was 20% in cohort 1 [squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN)], 30% in cohort 2 (urothelial carcinoma), and 18% in cohort 3 (renal cell carcinoma); there were no responders among 20 patients in cohort 4 (SCCHN). The disease control rates in cohorts 1-4 were 50%, 40%, 24%, and 25%, respectively. The median PFS was 5.5, 3.4, 3.4, and 3.6 months in cohorts 1-4, respectively, and the median overall survival was 16.8, 18.7, 21.7, and 7.7 months, respectively. Most adverse events were of grade 1/2 and were manageable.

CONCLUSIONS

Cobimetinib plus atezolizumab had moderate activity in patients with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment-naive SCCHN and urothelial carcinoma, and weak activity in anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment-naive renal cell carcinoma, and no activity in checkpoint inhibitor-treated patients.

Real-life use of trametinib after immunotherapy failure in BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma

BRAFV600 wild-type advanced melanomas quickly reach a therapeutic dead-end, after immunotherapy failure. Even if preclinical studies have suggested sensitivity to MEK inhibitors such as trametinib in NRAS, NF1 or GNA mutated melanoma, therapeutic options are limited for these patients. We present a retrospective monocentric study of 22 patients with advanced melanoma treated by trametinib after immunotherapy resistance. Melanomas harboured NRAS (20), NF1 (1) or GNA11 (1) mutations. For most of them (18), anti-PD1 was associated with trametinib. A disease-control was reported in 36% of patients (8/22), with six stable diseases and two partial responses according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria. Median progression-free survival was 2 months (1-14) and median overall survival was 6.5 months (2-24). In patients with progressive disease (14/22), dissociated radiologic responses and clinical benefits such as pain reduction were seen in five patients. High blood level of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) seemed associated with trametinib failure, without significance (P = 0.06). Adverse events (grade 1-3) occurred in 91% of patients during the first weeks of treatment, mainly papulo-pustular rashes (77%), leg oedemas (36%), asthenia (18%) and diarrhoea (14%). This real-life study showed that trametinib may benefit some metastatic melanoma that progressed after chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Objective disease control (partial response or stable disease) using RECIST criteria was observed in 36% of patients. Because of frequent side-effects which can alter the quality of life and the short response duration, this off-label option has to be discussed with the patient. Studies with combination therapy with trametinib to improve relapse-free survival and lower side-effects are ongoing.

Targeting TBK1 to overcome resistance to cancer immunotherapy

Despite the success of PD-1 blockade in melanoma and other cancers, effective treatment strategies to overcome resistance to cancer immunotherapy are lacking1,2. Here we identify the innate immune kinase TANK-binding kinase 1 (TBK1)3 as a candidate immune-evasion gene in a pooled genetic screen4. Using a suite of genetic and pharmacological tools across multiple experimental model systems, we confirm a role for TBK1 as an immune-evasion gene. Targeting TBK1 enhances responses to PD-1 blockade by decreasing the cytotoxicity threshold to effector cytokines (TNF and IFNγ). TBK1 inhibition in combination with PD-1 blockade also demonstrated efficacy using patient-derived tumour models, with concordant findings in matched patient-derived organotypic tumour spheroids and matched patient-derived organoids. Tumour cells lacking TBK1 are primed to undergo RIPK- and caspase-dependent cell death in response to TNF and IFNγ in a JAK-STAT-dependent manner. Taken together, our results demonstrate that targeting TBK1 is an effective strategy to overcome resistance to cancer immunotherapy.

Common toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy in the treatment of melanoma: A systematic scoping review

INTRODUCTION

This systematic scoping review compares the toxicities experienced by patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) or targeted therapy (TT) for stage III (resected and unresectable) and stage IV melanoma.

METHODS

OVID Medline, Embase, and PsycInfo were searched to identify Phase III trials reporting toxicities of FDA-approved ICIs and TT for advanced melanoma. AEs that were reported by ≥ 10% of patients in the evaluated trials were included.

RESULTS

Toxicity profiles of 11208 patients from 24 studies were reviewed. The rate of AEs was lower with ICIs compared to TT. However, ICIs were associated with higher rates of long-term or permanent AEs compared to TT, where toxicities generally were shortterm and reversible with treatment discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

The toxicity profiles of ICIs and TT vary substantially. Whilst the rate of AEs was lower with ICIs than during TT, it was also associated with higher rates of potentially chronic AEs.

Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant combined or sequenced vemurafenib, cobimetinib and atezolizumab in patients with high-risk, resectable BRAF-mutated and wild-type melanoma: NEO-TIM, a phase II randomized non-comparative study

Background

Following the increased survival of patients with metastatic melanoma thanks to immunotherapy and targeted therapy, neoadjuvant approaches are being investigated to address the unmet needs of unresponsive and intolerant patients. We aim to investigate the efficacy of neoadjuvant plus adjuvant combined or sequenced vemurafenib, cobimetinib and atezolizumab in patients with high-risk, resectable BRAF-mutated and wild-type melanoma.

Methods

The study is a phase II, open-label, randomized non-comparative trial in patients with stage IIIB/C/D surgically resectable, BRAF-mutated and wild-type melanoma, with three possible treatments: (1) vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily from day 1 to 42; (2) vemurafenib 720 mg twice daily from day 1 to 42; (3) cobimetinib 60 mg once daily from day 1 to 21 and from day 29 to 42; and (4) atezolizumab 840 mg for two cycles (day 22 and day 43).Patients will be randomized to three different arms: A) BRAF-mutated patients will receive over 6 weeks (1) + (3); B) BRAF-mutated patients will receive over 6 weeks (2) + (3) + (4); C) BRAF wild-type patients will receive over 6 weeks (3) + (4). All patients will also receive atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks for 17 cycles after surgery and after a second screening period (up to 6 weeks).

Discussion

Neoadjuvant therapy for regional metastases may improve operability and outcomes and facilitate the identification of biomarkers that can guide further lines of treatment. Patients with clinical stage III melanoma may especially benefit from neoadjuvant treatment, as the outcomes of surgery alone are very poor. It is expected that the combination of neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment may reduce the incidence of relapse and improve survival.

Clinical trial registration

eudract.ema.europa.eu/protocol.htm, identifier 2018-004841-17.

Comparative efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors for unresectable advanced melanoma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have entered the treatment paradigm for unresectable advanced melanoma, but there is a lack of evidence regarding its relative efficacy and safety. This study aim to compare the efficacy and safety of ICIs in patients with advanced unresectable melanoma.

METHODS

Studies included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared ICIs, or combination therapy of ICIs, or with chemotherapy drugs, different ICIs, or one of the ICIs at different dosing schedules. Random-effects models of Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed following the PRISMA reporting guideline. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse events.

PROSPERO

CRD42021229086.

RESULTS

Twenty-four RCTs with 18 different treatment regimens for advanced melanoma involving 10,090 patients were included. Overall, nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg treatment regimen were associated with the highest beneficial effect on OS, PFS, and DCR. Closely followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg, and nivolumab plus relatlimab treatment regimens. However, three regimens had less favorable safety profiles. Although ipilimumab 0.3 mg/kg was ranked as the best options with the lowest risk of grade ≥ 3 treatment or immune-related adverse events, less therapeutic benefit was performed. The pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg regimen may be the preferred treatment with relative higher efficiency and safety among the ICIs regimens reported, as well as the nivolumab 3 mg/kg regimen. Head-to-head trials showed similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shown the preferred treatment regimens with relatively higher efficiency and safety among the reported ICI regimens. Our results may complement the current standard of care, while its direct drug comparisons will aid future trials.

Gastric adenocarcinoma with high‑level microsatellite instability: A case report

Gastric cancer (GC) ranks fifth on the list of the most common malignancies worldwide. In Peru, gastric neoplasms are considered the second leading cause of mortality among males. Among the molecular subgroups of GC, microsatellite instability presents a favorable prognosis due to its hypermutated phenotype, which activates immunosurveillance. The present study describes the case of a 75-year-old patient, who was admitted in the hospital with a history of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and recurrent hospital admission, due to severe anemia. The patient presented with pale skin, normal vital functions, slight swelling of the lower extremities, and abdominal distention and bloating upon a physical examination. An endoscopic examination revealed an infiltrating circular ulcerated lesion. The histopathological analysis identified a moderately differentiated intestinal-type adenocarcinoma with pathological stage T3N0M0. Tumor genomic profiling demonstrated alterations in 15 different genes with a tumor mutational burden of 28 mutations/Mb. Finally, the patient underwent a partial gastrectomy without pre-operative chemotherapy. After 4 days, the patient presented with post-operative complications for which he was re-operated on. The patient did not survive. To the best of our knowledge, in the present case, pernicious anemia was an early sign of GC and a gastroscopy had to be performed. Furthermore, MutS homolog 3 alterations probably conditioned the presence of multiple frame-shift mutations.

Efficacy and Safety of PD-1/PD-L1 Checkpoint Inhibitors versus Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Combined with Other Therapies for Tumors: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

In recent years, the anti-programmed cell death protein-1 and its ligand (PD-1/PD-L1) or combination therapies have been recommended as an alternative emerging choice of treatment for oncology patients. However, the efficacy and adverse events of different combination strategies for the treatment of tumors remain controversial.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the European Society of Medicine Oncology (ESMO) were searched from database inception until 16 February 2022. The endpoints of objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs) were analyzed from different treatment schemes and tumor types. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022328927).

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included forty-eight eligible studies. Combination therapy has improved ORR (RR = 1.40, p < 0.001), DCR (RR = 1.22, p < 0.001), and PFS (the median survival ratio (MSR) was estimated to be 1.475 p < 0.001) compared to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 but had no significant benefit on OS (MSR was estimated to be 1.086 p = 0.117). Besides, combination treatment strategies are more toxic in any grade AEs (RR = 1.13, p < 0.001) and grade 3-5 AEs (RR = 1.81, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in combination with other antitumor therapies improve patients' ORR, DCR, and PFS compared to anti-PD-1/PD-L1. However, it is regrettable that there is no benefit to OS and an increased risk of AEs in combinatorial therapies.

Phase 1b study of cobimetinib plus atezolizumab in patients with advanced BRAFV600 wild-type melanoma progressing on prior anti-programmed death-1 therapy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of cobimetinib plus atezolizumab in the treatment of patients with advanced BRAF^V600 wild-type melanoma who had progressed on prior anti‒programmed death-1 (PD-1) therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This phase 1b, open-label, international multicentre study enrolled 3 cohorts. Herein, we report on patients in cohorts A and B who had progressed on prior anti‒PD-1 therapy. Patients in cohort A received cobimetinib 60 mg once daily for 21 days followed by a 7-day break and concurrent intravenous atezolizumab 840 mg every 2 weeks. Patients in cohort B received the same dosing regimen as cohort A except for cycle 1 in which patients received cobimetinib only for the first 14 days prior to initiation of atezolizumab on cycle 1 day 15. Coprimary end-points were objective response rate and disease control rate. Secondary end-points were duration of response, progression free survival and overall survival.

RESULTS

Between 19th June 2017 and 12th December 2018, 103 patients were enrolled. Median follow-up was 6.9 months (interquartile range, 4.8-10.1 months); objective response rate was 14.6% and disease control rate was 38.8% (95% confidence interval, 29.39-48.94). The median duration of response, progression-free survival and overall survival was 12.7 months, 3.8 months and 14.7 months, respectively. The most common adverse events were diarrhoea (75/103; 72.8%), dermatitis acneiform (57/103; 55.3%) and nausea (52/103; 50.5%). Thirty-four patients (33.0%) died: 33 (91.7%) due to progressive disease and one (1%) due to treatment-related oesophagitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapy with cobimetinib and atezolizumab in patients with advanced BRAF^V600 wild-type melanoma with disease progression on or after prior anti‒PD-1 therapy demonstrated limited activity.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT03178851.

Immunotherapy for Melanoma: The Significance of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for the Treatment of Advanced Melanoma

Therapeutic options for treating advanced melanoma have progressed rapidly in recent decades. Until 6 years ago, the regimen for treating advanced melanoma consisted mainly of cytotoxic agents such as dacarbazine and type I interferons. Since 2014, anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD1) antibodies have been recognized as anchor drugs for treating advanced melanoma, with or without additional combination drugs such as ipilimumab, but the efficacies of these immunotherapies are not fully satisfactory. In this review, we describe the development of the currently available anti-PD1 Abs-based immunotherapies for advanced melanoma, focusing on their efficacy and immune-related adverse events (AEs), as well as clinical trials still ongoing for the future treatment of advanced melanoma.

Targeted Therapy for Melanomas Without BRAF V600 Mutation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized the treatment paradigm for patients with metastatic melanoma; however, there remains an unmet clinical need for alternative treatment options for those patients who are either intolerant or refractory to immunotherapy. Here we review the role and clinical efficacy of targeted therapies for BRAF^V600 wild-type melanoma.

RECENT FINDINGS

Genomic analyses in BRAF^V600 wild-type melanoma have previously identified driver mutations along the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) and phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K)-AKT pathways that can be targeted with small molecule inhibitors. New drugs such as bispecific antibodies and antibody drug conjugates may have significant clinical activity even in rare subtypes of melanoma that are less responsive to ICIs. Historically, molecular-targeted therapies have modest clinical success in treating BRAF^V600 wild-type melanoma; nevertheless, they may have a significant clinical role in select, genetically distinct groups of patients. Next-generation immunotherapies or immunomodulators may represent the latest breakthrough in the treatment of melanoma. Additional studies are needed to identify novel drug targets and synergistic drug combinations to expand treatment options and optimize clinical outcomes.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and RAS-ERK Pathway-Targeted Drugs as Combined Therapy for the Treatment of Melanoma

Metastatic melanoma is a highly immunogenic tumor with very poor survival rates due to immune system escape-mechanisms. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA4) and the programmed death-1 (PD1) receptors, are being used to impede immune evasion. This immunotherapy entails an increment in the overall survival rates. However, melanoma cells respond with evasive molecular mechanisms. ERK cascade inhibitors are also used in metastatic melanoma treatment, with the RAF activity blockade being the main therapeutic approach for such purpose, and in combination with MEK inhibitors improves many parameters of clinical efficacy. Despite their efficacy in inhibiting ERK signaling, the rewiring of the melanoma cell-signaling results in disease relapse, constituting the reinstatement of ERK activation, which is a common cause of some resistance mechanisms. Recent studies revealed that the combination of RAS-ERK pathway inhibitors and ICI therapy present promising advantages for metastatic melanoma treatment. Here, we present a recompilation of the combined therapies clinically evaluated in patients.

Head-to-Head Comparison of BRAF/MEK Inhibitor Combinations Proposes Superiority of Encorafenib Plus Trametinib in Melanoma

Simple Summary

A decade ago, the diagnosis of metastatic melanoma was mostly a death sentence. This has changed since new therapies became widely available in the clinical setting. In addition to checkpoint inhibitors, targeted therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors is standard care for BRAF-mutated melanoma, which accounts for almost half of all melanoma cases. The second largest group of melanoma patients, whose tumors harbor a mutation in the NRAS gene, demonstrates only a limited response to targeted therapy with MEK inhibitors. The aim of this investigation was to directly compare all possible BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations in addition to the currently applied regimens. The analyzed data suggested that the combination of the BRAF inhibitor encorafenib and the MEK inhibitor trametinib demonstrated the highest anti-tumor activity in both, BRAF- and NRAS-mutated melanoma. This combination is not presently used in patient treatment, and therefore, deserves an opportunity to become part of clinical trials.

Abstract

BRAFV600 mutations in melanoma are targeted with mutation-specific BRAF inhibitors in combination with MEK inhibitors, which have significantly increased overall survival, but eventually lead to resistance in most cases. Additionally, targeted therapy for patients with NRASmutant melanoma is difficult. Our own studies showed that BRAF inhibitors amplify the effects of MEK inhibitors in NRASmutant melanoma. This study aimed at identifying a BRAF and MEK inhibitor combination with superior anti-tumor activity to the three currently approved combinations. We, thus, assessed anti-proliferative and pro-apoptotic activities of all nine as well as resistance-delaying capabilities of the three approved inhibitor combinations in a head-to-head comparison in vitro. The unconventional combination encorafenib/trametinib displayed the highest activity to suppress proliferation and induce apoptosis, acting in an additive manner in BRAFmutant and in a synergistic manner in NRASmutant melanoma cells. Correlating with current clinical studies of approved inhibitor combinations, encorafenib/binimetinib prolonged the time to resistance most efficiently in BRAFmutant cells. Conversely, NRASmutant cells needed the longest time to establish resistance when treated with dabrafenib/trametinib. Together, our data indicate that the most effective combination might not be currently used in clinical settings and could lead to improved overall responses.

Incidence risk of peripheral edema in cancer patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors: A PRISMA guideline systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To elucidate the relationship between peripheral edema and programmed cell death-1/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors, the meta-analysis was performed.

METHOD

Following the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses, all-grade and grade 3-5 of peripheral edema data extracted from clinical trials were taken into account for the final comprehensive assessments.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven PD-1/PD-L1-related clinical trials with peripheral edema data were collected. Compared with chemotherapy (PD-1/PD-L1 vs chemotherapy), the risk of developing peripheral edema for all-grade was much lower (odds ratio [OR] = 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.23, 0.56], Z = 4.55 [P < .00001]). When PD-1/PD-L1 plus chemotherapy were compared with chemotherapy, no significant analysis results for all-grade was found (OR = 1.15, 95% CI:[0.93, 1.44], I2 = 25%, Z = 1.27 [P = .20]). Similar risk trends could also be found when the incidence risk of peripheral edema for grade 3-5 was evaluated. No obvious publication bias was identified throughout the total analysis process.

CONCLUSION

The effect of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor on the risk of developing peripheral edema was weaker than that of chemotherapy, and the combination with chemotherapy slightly increased the incidence risk of developing peripheral edema without statistical significance.

Atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib in patients with melanoma with CNS metastases (TRICOTEL): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study

BACKGROUND

Targeted therapy and immunotherapy have shown intracranial activity in melanoma with CNS metastases, but there remains an unmet need, particularly for patients with symptomatic CNS metastases. We aimed to evaluate atezolizumab in combination with cobimetinib or vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in patients with melanoma with CNS metastases.

METHODS

TRICOTEL was a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study done in two cohorts: a BRAFV600 wild-type cohort and a BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort, recruited at 21 hospitals and oncology centres in Brazil, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated metastatic melanoma, CNS metastases of 5 mm or larger in at least one dimension, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less. Patients in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort received intravenous atezolizumab (840 mg, days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily, days 1-21). Patients in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort received intravenous atezolizumab (840 mg, days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus oral vemurafenib (720 mg twice daily) plus oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily, days 1-21); atezolizumab was withheld in cycle 1. Treatment was continued until progression, toxicity, or death. The primary outcome was intracranial objective response rate confirmed by assessments at least 4 weeks apart, as assessed by independent review committee (IRC) using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1. Because of early closure of the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort, the primary endpoint of intracranial objective response rate by IRC assessment was not done in this cohort; intracranial objective response rate by investigator assessment was reported instead. Efficacy and safety were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is closed to enrolment and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03625141.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 13, 2018, and Dec 7, 2020, 65 patients were enrolled in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort; the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort was closed early after enrolment of 15 patients. Median follow-up was 9·7 months (IQR 6·3-15·0) for the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and 6·2 months (3·5-23·0) for the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. Intracranial objective response rate was 42% (95% CI 29-54) by IRC assessment in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and 27% (95% CI 8-55) by investigator assessment in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. Treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 41 (68%) of 60 patients who received atezolizumab plus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort, the most common of which were lipase increased (15 [25%] of 60 patients) and blood creatine phosphokinase increased (ten [17%]). Eight (53%) of 15 patients treated with atezolizumab plus cobimetinib in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort had treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events, most commonly anaemia (two [13%]) and dermatitis acneiform (two [13%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 14 (23%) of 60 patients in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and two (13%) of 15 in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. One death in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort (limbic encephalitis) was considered to be related to atezolizumab treatment.

INTERPRETATION

Adding atezolizumab to vemurafenib plus cobimetinib provided promising intracranial activity in patients with BRAFV600-mutated melanoma with CNS metastases.

FUNDING

F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Immune Modulatory Effects of Molecularly Targeted Therapy and Its Repurposed Usage in Cancer Immunotherapy

The fast evolution of anti-tumor agents embodies a deeper understanding of cancer pathogenesis. To date, chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy are three pillars of the paradigm for cancer treatment. The success of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) implies that reinstatement of immunity can efficiently control tumor growth, invasion, and metastasis. However, only a fraction of patients benefit from ICI therapy, which turns the spotlight on developing safe therapeutic strategies to overcome the problem of an unsatisfactory response. Molecular-targeted agents were designed to eliminate cancer cells with oncogenic mutations or transcriptional targets. Intriguingly, accumulating shreds of evidence demonstrate the immunostimulatory or immunosuppressive capacity of targeted agents. By virtue of the high attrition rate and cost of new immunotherapy exploration, drug repurposing may be a promising approach to discovering combination strategies to improve response to immunotherapy. Indeed, many clinical trials investigating the safety and efficacy of the combination of targeted agents and immunotherapy have been completed. Here, we review and discuss the effects of targeted anticancer agents on the tumor immune microenvironment and explore their potential repurposed usage in cancer immunotherapy.

FGFR1/MAPK-directed brachyury activation drives PD-L1-mediated immune evasion to promote lung cancer progression

Immune checkpoint inhibitors provide promising benefits for patients with cancer. However, efficacy has been encumbered by high resistance rates. It is critical to understand the basic mechanisms of tumor-mediated resistance to this treatment modality. Previous studies have found that the transcription factor brachyury is highly expressed in lung cancer. Here, we show that brachyury activation induces the upregulation of PD-L1 leading to inactivation of T cell proliferation in vitro and inhibited infiltration of CD8⁺ and CD3⁺ T cells into tumor in an immunocompetent mouse model. We further demonstrate that FGFR1/MAPK activation regulates brachyury and PD-L1 expressions and promotes immunosuppression. Blocking FGFR1/MAPK suppresses brachyury and PD-L1 expressions, revives immune activity, and reverses the resistance to anti-PD-1 treatment to produce a durable therapeutic response. We also find that lung cancer patients with high activation of the FGFR1-MAPK-brachyury-PD-L1 signature and low expression of CD8A, CD3D, or PDCD1 have worse survival outcomes. These findings elucidate a novel mechanism of immune escape from immune checkpoint therapy and provide an opportunity to enhance its therapeutic efficacy in the treatment of a subset of FGFR1/MAPK/brachyury/PD-L1-driven lung cancer.

Risk of Rash in PD-1 or PD-L1-Related Cancer Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Given that immune-related rash was the most frequently reported PD-1 or PD-L1-related skin toxicity, this systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to elucidate its incidence risk.

Methods

The meta-analysis was carried out according to the PRISMA guidelines. The random effect model was used in the process of all analyses. Skin rash of all grades and grades 3–5 were calculated and gathered in the final comprehensive analyses.

Results

The study included 86 clinical trials classified into 15 groups. Compared with chemotherapy, PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors significantly strengthened the risk of developing rash across all grades (OR = 1.66, 95% CI: [1.31, 2.11]; p < 0.0001). This trend was significantly stronger when the control group was placebo (OR = 2.62, 95% CI: [1.88, 3.65]; p < 0.00001). Similar results were observed when PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors were given together with chemotherapy (OR = 1.87, 95% CI: [1.59, 2.20]; p < 0.00001), even in patients with grades 3–5. As with other combination therapies, the risk of developing rash for all grades was enhanced when PD-1 or PD-L1 was given together with chemotherapy as the second-line option (OR = 2.98, 95% CI: [1.87, 4.75]; p=0.05). No statistically significant differences could be found in skin rash between the PD-1 and PD-L1-related subgroups.

Conclusion

Whether PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors were given alone or together with others, the risk of developing rash would be enhanced. Furthermore, the risk of developing rash appeared to be higher when PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors together with other antitumor drugs were given as the second-line options. No statistically significant results of developing rash between PD-1 and PD-L1 subgroups were obtained owing to the participation of PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors.

The Multi-Dimensional Biomarker Landscape in Cancer Immunotherapy

The field of immuno-oncology is now at the forefront of cancer care and is rapidly evolving. The immune checkpoint blockade has been demonstrated to restore antitumor responses in several cancer types. However, durable responses can be observed only in a subset of patients, highlighting the importance of investigating the tumor microenvironment (TME) and cellular heterogeneity to define the phenotypes that contribute to resistance as opposed to those that confer susceptibility to immune surveillance and immunotherapy. In this review, we summarize how some of the most widely used conventional technologies and biomarkers may be useful for the purpose of predicting immunotherapy outcomes in patients, and discuss their shortcomings. We also provide an overview of how emerging single-cell spatial omics may be applied to further advance our understanding of the interactions within the TME, and how these technologies help to deliver important new insights into biomarker discovery to improve the prediction of patient response.

Local Investigators Significantly Overestimate Overall Response Rates Compared to Blinded Independent Central Reviews in Uncontrolled Oncology Trials: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature

Several drugs gained market authorization based on the demonstration of improved progression-free survival (PFS), adopted as a primary endpoint in Phase 3 clinical trials. In addition, an increasing number of drugs have been granted accelerated approval, and sometimes regular approval, by the main regulatory agencies based on the evaluation of the overall response rate in Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials. However, while the overall survival is an unbiased measure of drug efficacy, these outcomes rely on the assessment of radiological images and patients’ categorization using standardized response criteria. The evaluation of these outcomes may be influenced by subjective factors, particularly when the analysis is performed locally. In fact, blinding of treatment is not always possible in modern oncology trials. Therefore, a blinded independent central review is often adopted to overcome the problem of expectation bias associated with local investigator assessments. In this regard, we have recently observed that local investigators tend to overestimate the overall response rate in comparison to central reviewers in Phase 2 clinical trials, whereas we did not find any significant evaluation bias between local investigators and central reviews when considering progression-free survival in both Phase 2 and 3 trials. In the present article, we have tried to understand the reasons behind this discrepancy by reviewing the available evidence in the literature. In addition, a further analysis of Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials that included the evaluation of both endpoints showed that local investigators significantly overestimate overall response rates compared to blinded independent central reviews in uncontrolled oncology trials.

Charting roadmaps towards novel and safe synergistic immunotherapy combinations

Checkpoint inhibitor-based cancer immunotherapy is often combined in the clinic with other immunotherapy strategies, targeted therapies, chemotherapy or standard-of-care treatments to achieve superior therapeutic efficacy. The large number of immunotherapy combinations that are currently undergoing clinical testing necessitate the establishment of faithful criteria to prioritize optimal combinations with evidence of synergy, to determine their safety and optimal sequence of administration and to identify biomarkers of therapy resistance and response. In this review, we focus on recent developments in immunotherapy combinations and reflect on how combinations should be optimized to maximize the impact of immunotherapy in clinical oncology.

Activity and resistance of a brain-permeable paradox breaker BRAF inhibitor in melanoma brain metastasis

The therapeutic benefit of approved BRAF and MEK inhibitors (BRAFi/MEKi) in patients with brain metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutated melanoma is limited and transient. Resistance largely occurs through the restoration of MAPK signaling via paradoxical BRAF activation, highlighting the need for more effective therapeutic options. Aiming to address this clinical challenge, we characterized the activity of a potent, brain-penetrant paradox breaker BRAFi (compound 1a, C1a) as first line therapy and following progression upon treatment with approved BRAFi and BRAFi/MEKi therapies. C1a activity was evaluated in vitro and in vivo in melanoma cell lines and patient-derived models of BRAF V600E-mutant melanoma brain metastases following relapse after treatment with BRAFi/MEKi. C1a showed superior efficacy compared to approved BRAFi, both in subcutaneous and brain metastatic models. Importantly, C1a manifested potent and prolonged antitumor activity even in models that progressed on BRAFi/MEKi treatment. Analysis of mechanisms of resistance to C1a revealed MAPK reactivation under drug treatment as the predominant resistance-driving event in both subcutaneous and intracranial tumors. Specifically, BRAF kinase domain duplication was identified as a frequently occurring driver of resistance to C1a. Combination therapies of C1a and anti-PD1 antibody proved to significantly reduce disease recurrence. Collectively, these preclinical studies validate the outstanding antitumor activity of C1a in brain metastasis, support clinical investigation of this agent in patients pretreated with BRAFi/MEKi, unveil genetic drivers of tumor escape from C1a, and identify a combinatorial treatment that achieves long-lasting responses.

Discovery of Raf Family Is a Milestone in Deciphering the Ras-Mediated Intracellular Signaling Pathway

The Ras-Raf-MEK-ERK signaling pathway, the first well-established MAPK pathway, plays essential roles in cell proliferation, survival, differentiation and development. It is activated in over 40% of human cancers owing to mutations of Ras, membrane receptor tyrosine kinases and other oncogenes. The Raf family consists of three isoforms, A-Raf, B-Raf and C-Raf. Since the first discovery of a truncated mutant of C-Raf as a transforming oncogene carried by a murine retrovirus, forty years of extensive studies have provided a wealth of information on the mechanisms underlying the activation, regulation and biological functions of the Raf family. However, the mechanisms by which activation of A-Raf and C-Raf is accomplished are still not completely understood. In contrast, B-Raf can be easily activated by binding of Ras-GTP, followed by cis-autophosphorylation of the activation loop, which accounts for the fact that this isoform is frequently mutated in many cancers, especially melanoma. The identification of oncogenic B-Raf mutations has led to accelerated drug development that targets Raf signaling in cancer. However, the effort has not proved as effective as anticipated, inasmuch as the mechanism of Raf activation involves multiple steps, factors and phosphorylation of different sites, as well as complex interactions between Raf isoforms. In this review, we will focus on the physiological complexity of the regulation of Raf kinases and their connection to the ERK phosphorylation cascade and then discuss the role of Raf in tumorigenesis and the clinical application of Raf inhibitors in the treatment of cancer.